Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7741859.stm

So we end up paying for the crass mismanagement of our beloved game and the overpaid players get to keep their inflated salaries. What happened at Leeds is a scandal and should never be allowed to happen again!

Just another side of the level of self serving corruption that is endemic in football. Until the business of football is made to follow the same rules as any other business this sort of thing will keep going on.

I'm awaiting the inevitable "market forces" response here. Clubs have overpaid their players and, I'm guessing, Coaches, Directors et al, then right off the debts. How a structure of debt of this nature can be legal is beyond me.

this story is about 3 weeks old, but oh look the beeb have made a 'documentary' so it's now a lead news story.
£28million wooooo they'd lose more than that in tax each year if simon cowell died.

communistworkethic wrote:this story is about 3 weeks old, but oh look the beeb have made a 'documentary' so it's now a lead news story.
£28million wooooo they'd lose more than that in tax each year if simon cowell died.

simon fulller would still be alive though.

just make him pay the difference.

:/

Why is it that Crawley Town have to pay back 50% of their debts, whereas Leicester and Leeds only need to pay off around 10%? Luton offered to pay off the whole of their debts when the new owners took over, but the HMRC said no. Crazy.

Lord Kangana wrote:I'm awaiting the inevitable "market forces" response here. Clubs have overpaid their players and, I'm guessing, Coaches, Directors et al, then right off the debts. How a structure of debt of this nature can be legal is beyond me.

I'm not sure what the inevitable "market forces" response would be...

Like you, I'm not sure how football can decide unilaterally that football people should be at the top of the hierarchy of creditors when a club goes bust.

I will say this though... imagine if we were talking about some industry, like, I don't know, car manufacturing. If a manufacturer went bust, would most people's instincts say that they would prefer for the Revenue to collect its tax in full at the expense of workers receiving their wages? I doubt it. Why the difference here? I don't think in most cases that we're talking about outrageously highly-paid people. Footballers outside the premiership, coaches etc - why is it a 'scandal' if these people get paid before the tax man gets his money?

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:I'm awaiting the inevitable "market forces" response here. Clubs have overpaid their players and, I'm guessing, Coaches, Directors et al, then right off the debts. How a structure of debt of this nature can be legal is beyond me.

I'm not sure what the inevitable "market forces" response would be...

Like you, I'm not sure how football can decide unilaterally that football people should be at the top of the hierarchy of creditors when a club goes bust.

I will say this though... imagine if we were talking about some industry, like, I don't know, car manufacturing. If a manufacturer went bust, would most people's instincts say that they would prefer for the Revenue to collect its tax in full at the expense of workers receiving their wages? I doubt it. Why the difference here? I don't think in most cases that we're talking about outrageously highly-paid people. Footballers outside the premiership, coaches etc - why is it a 'scandal' if these people get paid before the tax man gets his money?

I kind of agree here. I think the argument of whether footballers get paid too much is seperate to who should get paid preferrentially. We arent talking hundred grand a week players here. Fine they get paid a lot, but it is these cases where the age old adage about a footballers career being short rings true. Mummy's analogy is a good one, and it isnt the players fault they get these (not hugely, and in the cases of the likes of Crawley, not at all, over inflated wages), if a acompany goes bust, of course the employees should get paid first. 28m pounds is a lot of money, but in terms of goverment income it is but an ants tear in the pacific. Obviously the people in charge, who let this situation arise should be examined, and their fitness to run a business questioned, but i dont see how this can be used as an xample of overpaid players.